Temperament traits in sows: Considerations for management and longevity Dr. Jennifer Brown Prairie Swine Centre, Saskatchewan, Canada. Jennifer.brown@usask.ca Outline Introduction to temperament research Why consider pig temperament? Links to aggression, maternal traits, RFI, handling response, stress and meat quality Measuring temperament Interactions between temperament and housing Sow temperament & the relationship to health and production Conclusions: considering temperament in sow selection Sow lameness, longevity and temperament workshop, October 2013 Pigs with personality? Temperament refers to behavioural traits that are consistent over time and across situations Synonymous with personality; often regarded as innate but influenced by experience/learning Temperament types have been characterised in many species Why consider temperament? Temperament is an important selection criterion in companion species: Horse temperament affects use and quality as a riding horse (Graf et al. 2013) Dog temperament used in service dog selection (Svartberg, 2006) Lloyd et al 2008 Murphy et al 1994...Pigs are no exception! In livestock: Focus on traits related to production and management Muir Inadvertent selection for aggression in poultry, swine Svartberg and Forkman, 2002 1
Models of temperament Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Common tool in HR/ Management training, self-awareness, leadership Five Factor Model- The Big Five 5 dimensions in human psychology: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism Similar traits found in animal research, esp. EAN Active/Passive traits Studies linking behaviour & stress physiology Focus on rodents, humans and pigs Pig temperament types Two temperament traits widely studied in pigs Active/Passive Hessing, 1993 Studies using back test Coping styles Links to aggression, stress physiology Confident/Fearful Hemsworth & Coleman Links to productivity Assessment of 2 traits: Four main types Important behaviour traits Sow line Aggression, Maternal characteristics Boar line Aggression, Handling, Stress and Coping style Aggression Temperament Maternal traits Genetic links Before selecting sows for specific traits, need to know Heritability of each trait Can we expect genetic progress? Genetic variation How different are individual sows? Association between traits If we select against aggression, will we influence handling or maternal abilities? Can we use temperament to select for increased production and suitability for specific environment? Ease of handling Coping style/stress response 2
Study of sow temperament and housing environment Objective: Understand the effects of group gestation housing on sow temperament, and interactions between housing environment, temperament & factors influencing sow longevity Specific objectives were to determine: i) If temperament traits differ between sows housed in different systems i) Whether temperament traits are linked to factors influencing sow production or longevity Sow temperament and housing methods 284 sows studied over two gestations Housed in two similar ESF housing systems Part slatted, unbedded system (CONV, n = 138 sows) Deep straw bedded system (ALT, n = 146 sows) Group sizes: 21 30 sows Sows mixed at five weeks gestation Temperament evaluation: four tests at eight weeks gestation Additional sow measures: Body condition score & backfat Injury & lameness Sow productivity: piglets born, weaned, mortality Temperament and housing system Conventional ESF ~ partially slatted concrete floor Alternative ESF ~ straw over concrete floor Free access stall Measuring temperament Open door test (ODT) Group test Latency for a pig to exit a test pen Novel object test (NOT) Latency to contact objects, frequency of contacts Pig approaching human (PAH) Latency to contact a human, total number of contacts, time spent within 1m Human Approach test (HAP) Response score to an approaching human. Low score = fearful; High score = confident 3
ALT CONV Test Active/passive (1) Confident/fearful Active/passive (2) ODT latency (s) 0.082-0.052 0.902 ODT rank -0.056 0.047 0.917 PAH latency (s) -0.129-0.750-0.034 PAH contacts (freq.) 0.068 0.846-0.019 PAH time within 1m -0.038 0.897-0.048 HAP (score) -0.027 0.672 0.045 NOT latency (s) -0.608-0.139-0.126 NOT switches (freq.) 0.999-0.079-0.036 NOT total contacts (freq.) 1.000-0.077-0.033 NOT total duration of contacts (s) 0.720 0.263-0.012 Test Confident/fearful Active/passive (1) Active/Passive (2) ODT latency (s) 0.072-0.091 0.958 ODT rank -0.005 0.071 0.942 PAH latency (s) -0.883 0.045 0.073 PAH contacts (freq.) 0.926 0.003 0.025 PAH time within 1m 0.891-0.025-0.007 HAP (score) 0.684 0.119 0.168 NOT latency (s) -0.278-0.551 0.220 NOT switches (freq.) -0.059 0.963 0.089 NOT total contacts (freq.) -0.054 0.970 0.074 NOT total duration of contacts (s) 0.066 0.778-0.100 Comparison of sows in bedded and concrete ESF systems Housing influenced sows response to temperament tests System Behavioural test variables Straw Part-slatted HAP Score 2.38 3.32 <0.005 PAH latency to exit (s) 111.11 99.24 NS PAH time within 1 meter (s) 38.33 46.05 0.074 PAH number of contacts 3.15 3.69 NS ODT latency to exit (s) 15.43 57.28 <0.001 NOT latency to contact (s) 44.67 59.36 <0.05 NOT total contacts 7.96 6.29 <0.001 NOT total duration of contacts (s) 25.95 39.35 <0.005 NOT frequency of switching between objects 6.98 5.36 0.001 Sows in bedded system: more active, fearful P Breed effects on temperament Age effects on temperament Free access stalls at PSC Purebred line showed more active/confident responses ODT: shorter latency to exit pen PAH: shorter latency to contact human Crossbred line showed more passive/fearful responses ODT: Longer latency to exit pen PAH: Longer latency to approach human HAP Middle parity sows (2 nd 3 rd parity) had a higher HAP score than young or old sows (P<0.005) PAH Older sows (4 th parity of greater) took: Longer to approach a human (P<0.005) Spent less time within 1m of a human (P<0.005) Made fewer contacts with the human (P<0.05) Fearful, or indifferent? Fear responses influenced by age/experience No influence of age on ODT and NOT measures 4
Relationships between temperament, body condition & injury score Part slatted ESF Active sows had a higher injury score Confident sows showed a greater improvement in BCS over gestation Higher social status, lower stress, reduced RFI? Straw bedded ESF Active sows lost a more body condition during lactation More stress in farrowing? Or better lactation ability? Confident sows had higher injury score Trait Relationships between temperament, body condition & injury score Active/Passive Confident/Fearful Part-slatted ESF Active= higher injury score (- ve) Confident= greater increase in BCS in gestation (+ ve) Straw bedded ESF Active= greater BCS loss in lactation (- ve) Confident= higher injury score (- ve) Active traits: linked to aggression, confirms previous studies Passive traits: reduced aggression, maintained BCS during lactation Relationships between temperament & productivity Free access system: Sows with more passive traits produced: greater number of piglets born & born alive Sows with more fearful traits produced: greater number of piglets born & born alive Fearful sows unlikely to be truly fearful: sows have a lot of human contact not avoiding human, more likely indifferent Previous studies: passive traits linked to reduced aggression and better mothering ability (Lovendahl et al, 2005, Andersen et al, 2005) Summary Active trait has negative attributes: greater injury scores, decreased BCS in farrowing fewer pigs born alive Previous studies: more aggressive, poor maternal traits Select for passive sows Confident trait has negative & positive attributes: Increased BCS in gestation, greater injury scores fewer pigs born alive Previous studies: greater productivity, reduced stress Confirm/validate using other measures, eg heart rate, cortisol, social status 5
Conclusions & future research Can we use temperament to select for increased production and suitability for specific environment? Temperament traits are heritable There is significant genetic variation Related to important production traits Recommend two pronged approach Selection: for sociable temperament, reduced aggression Management: pen designs to reduce competition, mixing prototcols Conclusions & future research Future work: still a long way to go Distinguish between fear/indifference Gain better understanding of effects of housing environment influence of age and experience Determine heritability and phenotypic and genotypic variation Define associations among traits Stress, handling, maternal, fear Acknowledgements Specific program funding was provided by the Canadian Swine Research and Development Cluster. Strategic program funding provided by Sask Pork, Alberta Pork, Manitoba Pork Council, and the Saskatchewan Agricultural Development Fund. Thank You! 6